I recall that during the scene when DoctorBeverly Crusher is preparing Jean-Luc Picard for cosmetic surgery, she mentions how one of his eyes was slightly (millimeters I think) lower than the other, in which Picard replies: "Nobody's perfect, Doctor." Can anybody confirm the quote? I think this would make a nice addition to this article, and a great introduction to the cosmetic surgery page. - Intricated 00:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This has always bugged me since this episode first aired: does anyone know who's ship the small combat vessel that was destroyed was? Race? Used again? Etc. Thanks ahead. --216.9.250.62 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though Geordi says that the unidentified ship matches the Enterprise's armaments, Riker lets them get off two attacks before counterattacking, and even then he says they just want the attack to get their attention. Is he trying to get the ship destroyed?

Dr. Crusher asks Data if his ears are removable. First of all, shouldn't she already know whether they are removable? As Chief Medical Officer, hasn't she examined Data at some point in the past five years? Secondly, Data says they are not removable, yet when we saw Lore disassembled in "Datalore," his ears were not installed. Dr. Soong said in "Brothers" that Data and Lore were identical except for a bit of programming.

Both Picard and Perrin seem to indicate that Sarek was not offended when Spock attacked his position in the debates over the Cardassian wars. Perrin then states (in contradiction to her declaration that nothing happened between herself and Spock) that SHE was offended, and that she let him know it. Sounds like the problem WAS between Perrin and Spock.

When the quartermaster of the salvage yard is reading the details of the vulcan ship to Riker, he says "stardate 41344" and the monitor shows "Arrival: Stardate 41334".--Reginald Barclay 13:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed "Unification, Part I" and "Unification, Part II" (for the second article, obviously) like "Chain of Command, Part I", "Chain of Command, Part II", "Gambit, Part I", "Gambit, Part II" et al are? I just through having this article different might confuse people who add the episode template in an article. That and it isn't really consistent with other two-part articles. TrekFan 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We call the episodes by what they're on-screen. It's official title is indeed "Unification I". Two-parters have never been consistently named in Star Trek. Have a look at Story arcs#Two-part episodes and you'll see there's actually four different ways they have been handled:

The Guest Stars section of this article states that Jaron appears in this episode, but in Jaron's article, it states that he only appears in Unification II. I don't remember seeing Jaron in this episode - should he be removed from the Guest Stars section? —Slowspace 20:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He was dressed as a romulan soldier who told Picard and Data not to move when they were leaving the soup cafe place. --Alan 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful reply! On the same subject, Sela is listed in the Uncredited Co-Stars section, but I don't remember seeing her in this episode. Did she appear briefly? —Slowspace 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I saw. The only scene would have been in Neral's office during his discussion with Pardek and I didn't see her there, she only appeared in Part II after Spock met with Neral. --Alan 21:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Sela deliver the last line of the episode? (Don't discount Jean-Luc Picard yet. He is human, and humans have a way of showing up when you least expect them.) Or was she credited for it?--31dot 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it should be moved to the albums page as it doesn't relate to this episode. But seeing as I couldn't find a part there for background information I kept it here. Either way I'm not sure if this is considered a nitpick/production error and would be kept on the article – Saphsaph 11:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that when the enterprise powered down the lights on the bridge did not dim in the slightest, surely they'd go down to emergency lighitng if they had in fact turned off non-essential power.
82.41.88.252 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the story is here, but in the scene in the cave when pardek first introduces himself, the "soldiers" behind him are removing their jackes. However, for some reason i can't explain, the one on the left seems to take off his jacket, put it back on, then take it off again is a most unnatural-looking way. Can anyone explain this? — DeFender1031*Talk 09:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Not really talk page material but...it's simply he's removing his "suspenders" first and then removing his jacket. The suspenders are probably his gun holster or some other purely ornamental garb. — Morder (talk) 10:06, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following note which has no citation and is pure speculation. I also doubt that a guest star can choose Trek related terms for the existing dialogue:

"When Klim Dokachin (Graham Jarvis) is talking to Counselor Troi about some of the odds and ends he's found on-board the derelict craft, he mentions that he once found a Caldorian Eel. This could be referencing Jarvis's recurring role in the Journeyman Project series, which is set in a floating city named Caldoria.". Tom 23:28, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I present for consideration the following excerpt from a quote contained in the article:

"I'm sure the Klingons found it amusing to put us in here together."
"Since I do not require sleep, I propose you take the...shelf, sir, I am content to stand."
-Data and Picard, Trying to sort out sleeping arrangements on the Klingon ship.

(Underline added for emphasis)

I have recently watched this episode, and IMO the humour in the quote comes from Data's mid-word reassessment of the sleeping arrangements. He actually starts to say, "bed" then pauses before completing the word and says, "shelf" instead. Would adding a "b" or a "be" before the ellipsis be too confusing for those unfamiliar with the episode? Perhaps someone else can suggest a better way to convey the nuanced humour in the quote. Cheers. PalindromicAnagram 06:38, September 7, 2010 (UTC)